Sign In Now ► or Create A New Account ►
0 comments
2 comments
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
on 3/21/2010
Two of the more unconventional biopics around. Both films rely heavily on audacious stylistic flourishes to examine their subjects as opposed to more conventional forms of exposition. Where they differ is in that Mishima's style is an intentionally garish one, meant to mirror the ostentatious garishness of much of the writer's work and the ugliness of his character, where as Hunger's stylistic flourishes don't seem to have anything to do with its subject (Bobby Sands), but are rather meant to simply convey the emotional state he was in at the time. Mishima is actually intent on probing the mind of its subject. Identifying the man by examining his work, his death, and a few choice moments of his life. Hunger, on the other hand concerns itself with Sands' physical condition (that he's in prison, that he's starving to death, etc.) and mostly ignores both his psychological condition and his philosophical outlook. Hunger shows how a man sacrificed his life for political reasons, while Mishima shows why a man chose to sacrifice his life for (partially) political reasons. This difference makes Hunger feel like a far less passionate film, as does the fact that it is a largely apolitical film about a highly political subject. I really enjoy both of these films, but I have to give this to Mishima on the grounds that it's just more interesting.
on 3/22/2010
That was a little scattered, but yeah, that's kinda what I think.
